Good day, This is my second comment letter on your proposed
changes. To reiterate my stance, I am vehemently opposed to the idea of
naming any companies "product" as a "standard." All products should have
their usefulness decided in the marketplace, as that is what a
free-market is designed for. Allowing a company to "own" a standard
would give its product lines unfair advantages and control over the
future shaping of the web. Standards should be the playing field upon
which we all come together to compete, not the un-level hill that we
must pay a fare to climb. If we can not _ALL_ come to the web and pit
our products and ideas equally, then the web will not represent the best
part of the real world marketplace, the open and free competition that
drives us, and compels us to improve. This would be a sad day indeed.
I had stated in my last letter that allowing products to become
standards would lock their pace of improvement and development to the
needs of the company. To further explain, I believe that companies
decide to add features as a revenue generating cycle, and as such, they
only generate the features most asked for by a consumer base. If I as a
web developer want to add functionality to my site, and the current
standard cannot adapt to this, if it is an open standard, I can expand
the functionality myself and continue my work, without forcing my
individual needs on anyone else. And in this case, Any expanded
functionality that is not a part of the standard has the opportunity to
become a product of its own. On a closed standard that is controlled and
royalty-bound I am forced to try to find enough support in the
community, and then attempt to compel the company to make the changes
for me, and then pay them for the newest iteration of their product.
This adds at least 3 layers of unnecessary administration and time and
effort on to and otherwise simple pursuit. This also makes the
extensions a permanent part of the "standard" and forces all web sites
to carry the added functionality whether or not they require it. This in
itself is not good for the web community. Also, the code base is hidden
in a closed standard, and cannot be streamlined, improved, or reviewed
by peers on the web. To maintain the accessibility of the web, we need
not to sell off it's standards to the companies standing poised to lock
it down and close access to voices, opinions, and products that compete
fairly with their own. We need to keep the web a free-market with an
open and accessible standard on which to build our future.
Again, thank-you for your time and attention.
Jesse M. Klug